Re: Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09
Counselors, cc: Kevin Wilson Here are some comments on the travel discussion. I¹d be quite happy to join a call with your travel committee if there are still issues that need resolution, or if I can help in any way. Much of this discussion on travel relates back to budget, but for a whole variety of reasons, it might be easier to focus on the number of supported people instead of budget dollars (and I think this could avoid some of the awkward outcomes Philip noted). The current travel procedure talks about a certain number of people getting travel support for meetings (air and per diem). To add some flexibility (and to respond to a suggestion from Olga and many others) at the cost of some additional tracking, ICANN can enable a split of that support; a certain number receiving air reimbursement and a certain number receiving per diem support (where these could be different people). To belabor the point for clarity, if before there were ten total people supported for air and per diem, now perhaps five could receive both air and per diem, five could receive air only, and five per diem only. Now, to directly respond to some of Philip's questions/comments:
On 12/9/08 2:59 PM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote: (I've snipped most of Philip's text other than his questions...don't think I've changed any meaning.)
The fund pool would be determined by the total funds (less nom com and Council chair funding). So far so good. Using the approach described above, you'd go back to a number of supported people, not a fund. Then, each constituency would be allocated some number of supported travelers.
------------------ 1. Total GNSO Fund pool. This will be uncertain and a function of the location of the GNSO nom com people and Council chair (ie the variable costs of air tickets and days stayed). So how do you allocate? If we go by number of travelers, the variability is a budget variability that does not affect the constituency; it will just impact the accuracy of ICANN budgeting by the staff.
2. How are funds paid? A lump sum to each constituency in January each year - how is it determined? Or a constituency budget that is drawn against until it reaches zero? - how is it determined? Its still a function of GNSO nom com / chair travel is it not? In this model, there would just be a fixed number of supported travelers, so again, I don't think this is a problem.
3. New Constituencies Does each new constituency reduce the level of budget to the old constituencies? If NOT - is travel funding an INCENTIVE to form a new constituency ? This is something to get further feedback on. I saw a subsequent comment that perhaps there should be some time go by before a new constituency can get funding. In any event, perhaps this issue could be addressed in the upcoming review of the travel procedure.
4. Equal allocation by constituency Does this make sense in a new stakeholder group model? What of a constituency of 500 members versus a constituency of 5 ? This is an issue for the Supporting Organization to decide.
Alternative The more one considers these scenarios and unanticipated outcomes, the more a simple mechanism such as "all Council members get their hotel bills paid" in 2009 makes sense. (And maybe ICANN will look at 2010 to also fund travel for Council members). While your approach is certainly reasonable and echoed by many, many also said that there should be no travel support, and others said that support should specifically consider the needs of the new working group model. The review of this procedure will be coming soon, with I think some kind of kick-off at the Mexico City meeting.
Best, Doug -- Doug Brent Chief Operating Officer ICANN Voice: +1 310.301.3871 Mobile: +1 650.996.4447 Fax: +1 310.823.8649
The approach Doug suggests (allocating "units" of people who get funded per constituency rather than a budget) certainly would appear to simplify budget calculation and handling issues for each constituency. But the simpler solution proposed by Philip of funding a specific type of expenditure (Philip suggests hotel fees for Counsellors) also has some allure. Overall, it does seem however that this issue is going back and forth but not really making much headway. Sorry if that's a rather negative impression, but as Tim Ruiz asked the other day: what now, how do we move forward? Stéphane Van Gelder Le 15/12/08 05:25, « Doug Brent » <doug.brent@icann.org> a écrit :
Counselors, cc: Kevin Wilson
Here are some comments on the travel discussion. I¹d be quite happy to join a call with your travel committee if there are still issues that need resolution, or if I can help in any way.
Much of this discussion on travel relates back to budget, but for a whole variety of reasons, it might be easier to focus on the number of supported people instead of budget dollars (and I think this could avoid some of the awkward outcomes Philip noted).
The current travel procedure talks about a certain number of people getting travel support for meetings (air and per diem). To add some flexibility (and to respond to a suggestion from Olga and many others) at the cost of some additional tracking, ICANN can enable a split of that support; a certain number receiving air reimbursement and a certain number receiving per diem support (where these could be different people). To belabor the point for clarity, if before there were ten total people supported for air and per diem, now perhaps five could receive both air and per diem, five could receive air only, and five per diem only.
Now, to directly respond to some of Philip's questions/comments:
On 12/9/08 2:59 PM, "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> wrote: (I've snipped most of Philip's text other than his questions...don't think I've changed any meaning.)
The fund pool would be determined by the total funds (less nom com and Council chair funding). So far so good. Using the approach described above, you'd go back to a number of supported people, not a fund. Then, each constituency would be allocated some number of supported travelers.
------------------ 1. Total GNSO Fund pool. This will be uncertain and a function of the location of the GNSO nom com people and Council chair (ie the variable costs of air tickets and days stayed). So how do you allocate? If we go by number of travelers, the variability is a budget variability that does not affect the constituency; it will just impact the accuracy of ICANN budgeting by the staff.
2. How are funds paid? A lump sum to each constituency in January each year - how is it determined? Or a constituency budget that is drawn against until it reaches zero? - how is it determined? Its still a function of GNSO nom com / chair travel is it not? In this model, there would just be a fixed number of supported travelers, so again, I don't think this is a problem.
3. New Constituencies Does each new constituency reduce the level of budget to the old constituencies? If NOT - is travel funding an INCENTIVE to form a new constituency ? This is something to get further feedback on. I saw a subsequent comment that perhaps there should be some time go by before a new constituency can get funding. In any event, perhaps this issue could be addressed in the upcoming review of the travel procedure.
4. Equal allocation by constituency Does this make sense in a new stakeholder group model? What of a constituency of 500 members versus a constituency of 5 ? This is an issue for the Supporting Organization to decide.
Alternative The more one considers these scenarios and unanticipated outcomes, the more a simple mechanism such as "all Council members get their hotel bills paid" in 2009 makes sense. (And maybe ICANN will look at 2010 to also fund travel for Council members). While your approach is certainly reasonable and echoed by many, many also said that there should be no travel support, and others said that support should specifically consider the needs of the new working group model. The review of this procedure will be coming soon, with I think some kind of kick-off at the Mexico City meeting.
Best, Doug
-- Doug Brent Chief Operating Officer ICANN Voice: +1 310.301.3871 Mobile: +1 650.996.4447 Fax: +1 310.823.8649
Thanks Stephane, The other advantage of my proposal to fund just the hotel costs for 2009 for Council members is that the admin cost for ICANN (and Council members - our time to claim or sort out another system) is zero. Its an ICANN hotel, ICANN negotiates the rates, and then simply pays one bill for Board, Staff and Council. No claiming, no fuss. And all the available money goes where it matters not wasted on staff bills. Philip
Avri mentioned in an email sent last Thursday that a motion on travel support should be the next step. Has such a motion been proposed yet? Thanks, Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager +33 1 48 01 86 17 INDOM Noms de domaine / Domain names 124-126, rue de Provence 75008 Paris France 0820 77 7000 (Prix d'un appel local) De l'étranger (calling from outside France): + 33 1 76 70 05 67 www.indom.com Daily domain name industry news: www.domaines.info Mon blog/My blog : www.stephanevangelder.com Le 16/12/08 09:33, « Philip Sheppard » <philip.sheppard@aim.be> a écrit :
Thanks Stephane,
The other advantage of my proposal to fund just the hotel costs for 2009 for Council members is that the admin cost for ICANN (and Council members - our time to claim or sort out another system) is zero. Its an ICANN hotel, ICANN negotiates the rates, and then simply pays one bill for Board, Staff and Council. No claiming, no fuss. And all the available money goes where it matters not wasted on staff bills.
Philip
Hi Stephane, no motion has been proposed yet. Regards Olga 2008/12/16 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Avri mentioned in an email sent last Thursday that a motion on travel support should be the next step.
Has such a motion been proposed yet?
Thanks,
Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager +33 1 48 01 86 17
INDOM Noms de domaine / Domain names 124-126, rue de Provence 75008 Paris France 0820 77 7000 (Prix d'un appel local) De l'étranger (calling from outside France): + 33 1 76 70 05 67 www.indom.com
Daily domain name industry news: www.domaines.info Mon blog/My blog : www.stephanevangelder.com
Le 16/12/08 09:33, « Philip Sheppard » <philip.sheppard@aim.be> a écrit :
Thanks Stephane,
The other advantage of my proposal to fund just the hotel costs for 2009
for
Council members is that the admin cost for ICANN (and Council members - our time to claim or sort out another system) is zero. Its an ICANN hotel, ICANN negotiates the rates, and then simply pays one bill for Board, Staff and Council. No claiming, no fuss. And all the available money goes where it matters not wasted on staff bills.
Philip
Thanks Olga. Le 16/12/08 15:29, « Olga Cavalli » <olgac@fibertel.com.ar> a écrit :
Hi Stephane, no motion has been proposed yet. Regards Olga
2008/12/16 Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder@indom.com>
Avri mentioned in an email sent last Thursday that a motion on travel support should be the next step.
Has such a motion been proposed yet?
Thanks,
Stéphane Van Gelder Directeur Général / General manager +33 1 48 01 86 17
INDOM Noms de domaine / Domain names 124-126, rue de Provence 75008 Paris France 0820 77 7000 (Prix d'un appel local) De l'étranger (calling from outside France): + 33 1 76 70 05 67 www.indom.com <http://www.indom.com>
Daily domain name industry news: www.domaines.info <http://www.domaines.info> Mon blog/My blog : www.stephanevangelder.com <http://www.stephanevangelder.com>
Le 16/12/08 09:33, « Philip Sheppard » <philip.sheppard@aim.be> a écrit :
Thanks Stephane,
The other advantage of my proposal to fund just the hotel costs for 2009
for
Council members is that the admin cost for ICANN (and Council members - our time to claim or sort out another system) is zero. Its an ICANN hotel, ICANN negotiates the rates, and then simply pays one bill for Board, Staff and Council. No claiming, no fuss. And all the available money goes where it matters not wasted on staff bills.
Philip
participants (4)
-
Doug Brent -
Olga Cavalli -
Philip Sheppard -
Stéphane Van Gelder